Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels

[hrdlr110]

Oh. So when other people throw all sorts of crap at me, that's okay. But when I respond in kind, then I lack credibility. I see how it is.

And seriously, reasonist..."bronze age mythologies and fairy tales" are just assertions without evidence. Try to back up your claims with something substantive.

The evidence we give you for this is probably already within your reach,  maybe even sitting in your lap right this minute. Your hOlY biBLe and its many inconsistencies is what we often use as our evidence. I have one next to my bed as well - because of people like you. Cover to cover it's a tough read. If i were starting a religion today,  and the bible was my marketing material to woo a potential following,  I'd most likely be locked up. 

[Blackleaf]

I stand corrected. You are thinking of the original speaker while I was thinking of the original author. I cede to your reckoning.

Since the question is whether or not Jesus claimed to be divine, someone else recording his words would not be the original source.

If you were some other person writing a gospel and trying to get it accepted by the growing Church, would you claim it was written by a hated tax collector? Or would you ascribe it to the pillars of the Early Church - Peter, James or John? C'mon...use your understanding of basic marketing here.

If I were to create my own religious text, I would claim it to be from someone else who directly experienced the miraculous events I write about. Someone like a disciple of the religious leader. And if I could make up a transformation story about how this hated tax collector became a holy man, that'd make my religion seem all the more exciting. If I claimed to be an eyewitness myself, then I would have to prove my credibility. But if I "found" a letter from Paul, who are they to question such an important leader of the church?

Believe it or not, Christians wouldn't be the first to lie to create their religious documents. I don't believe Islamic texts just because "hey, these copies are the same, so we must know what the original author wrote!"

I know why cops separate people. That's what J. Warner Wallace knows as a detective in Los Angeles. That's why he finds the gospels so compelling and why he abandoned the atheism he learned in his parents' home and became a believer. However, it may also be the case that two people are telling the truth and emphasizing different things or simply recalling different details. This is expected by law enforcement professionals.

You are painfully naive. If J. Warner Wallace was convinced so easily, that's his problem. Eyewitness testimony has long been known to be an EXTREMELY unreliable source of information. Not only that, but we don't have eyewitnesses to go by. We have copies of copies of copies of documents SUPPOSEDLY written by eyewitnesses. Not only that, but we have copies of copies of documents supposedly written by eyewitnesses of SUPERNATURAL EVENTS. I'd sooner trust someone who claimed to have been abducted by an alien spacecraft. At least then I know who the original source of the information is.

The authors of the NT were not mere scribes taking dictation from God. They were true authors who used their own skills and abilities to record what the Holy Spirit inspired them to record. There is no problem in this.

Or they are people who copied down stories passed down verbally to them. Or they are people who forged those documents. We have no reason to believe the authors are who they are claimed to be.

Yes, there are differences, but not things that flat-out contradictory - the exact opposite. If you think differently, please provide a NT example.

Jesus two genealogy accounts claim two different fathers for Joseph. (Contrary to what apologists say, Luke specifically states the his genealogy is from Joseph's side of the family in 3:23.)

Matthew claims that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod, while Luke said that he was born during the first census of Israel after Quirinius became governor, which happened 10 years AFTER Herod died.

Luke claims that Joseph and Mary traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem for Jesus to be born there, but Matthew says that Jesus was born in Bethlehem THEN Joseph and Mary moved to Nazareth. Both authors jumped through hoops to put Jesus in Bethlehem, even inventing the ridiculous claim that the census required everyone to travel to their original home town. The point of a census is to count numbers, not to keep record of where everyone was born. And even if they needed that information, it would have been less expensive just to ASK.

In John 1:29, John the Baptist declares who Jesus is as "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" just before Baptising Jesus for the beginning of his ministry. But later, when he's thrown into prison in the book of Luke, John sends some of his men to Jesus to ask, "Are you the one who is coming, or do we look for someone else?" I guess watching God descend on Jesus head like a dove wasn't a clear enough message for John... Or, you know, both stories, written by different men, were made up.

The first three gospel books claim that the Last Supper took place on the day of the Passover, while the book of John says that the Last Supper was the day before the Passover and that Jesus was crucified the day of the Passover.

Matthew 27:7 says the priests bought the potter's field while Acts 1:18 says that Judas bought it. Matthew 27:5 says that Judas hung himself out of grief. Acts 1:18 says that Judas tripped and accidentally disemboweled himself with a sharp rock.

After seeing the angel at Jesus' empty tomb, Mary simultaneously tells no one about it out of fear (Mark 16:8) and immediately ran to tell the eleven disciples about what she found (every other account).

No sign shall be given to this generation (Mark 8:12), but many people followed Jesus because of the miracles he performed (John 6:2).

The disciples are instructed both to take a staff (Mark 6:8) and not to take a staff (Matthew 10:9-10).

[Baruch]

Yawn ... I see nothing new is happening.  Randy ... you need to try harder, without repeating yourself.

"Reliable men tell us what they know to be true, and we can accept their testimonies. This is a basic philosophical truth." ... there are no reliable men.  I am not sure G-d is reliable (pretty sure G-d is not).  Greeks and Irish think that words are true.  Zen knows that words are powerless.  Testimonies ... again ... speaks to primitive trial situations.  Old Roman trials asked ... Qui Bono.  Who benefits?  Well the Roman Emperor and the "orthodox/catholic" clergy who become civil servants ... benefit.  But no miracles please ... you only discredit yourself.  Any real Jesus ... was clinically psycho.  That does work in your favor, because I feel that G-d is real, but psycho.

[Baruch]

The evidence we give you for this is probably alway within your reach,  maybe even sitting in your lap right this minute. Your hOlY biBLe and its many inconsistencies is what we often use as our evidence. I have one next to my bed as well - because of people like you. Cover to cover it's a tough read. If i were starting a religion today,  and the bible was my marketing material to woo a potential following,  I'd most likely be locked up.

This is why in the US, Christianity is simplified ... for the rubes.  Down to WWJD.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No, it wouldn't. But having an accurate text and reasons to believe that the authors were honest and reliable is a pre-requisite for considering whether what they claim about Jesus' divinity is true.

And your efforts to promote their credibility are tainted by a severe bias that you obviously don't notice.

[Baruch]

No, it wouldn't. But having an accurate text and reasons to believe that the authors were honest and reliable is a pre-requisite for considering whether what they claim about Jesus' divinity is true.

Other's claims for Jesus' divinity, are even weaker than Jesus claims (arguable that they are).

"Yes, the silence of God would have been on my list of reasons people become atheists." ... as a mystic, G-d isn't silent or invisible to me, the exact opposite.  Those who have eyes to see and ears to hear know this ... but there are very few of us, who get G-d.  Most humans have the wrong definitions of their words, if they even know what the words they use even mean.  In the Gospel of John, people demand miracles, and Jesus refuses them (except for the miracle of Jonah ... which people then misinterpret, because they are ignorant of Jonah).  What was miraculous about Jonah ... is that Jonah, in spite of running away from G-d's call, preached to the Ninevites and they repented (temporarily).  It wasn't about being swallowed by Leviathan (not a whale) or about the burial and resurrection of Jesus.  That is felt-cut-out picture apologetics for children.  Christian interpretation of NT ... is mostly Gentile ignorant.  But then again, they don't have the spirit of G-d in them.  If they did, they would be mystics like myself, and know G-d.  Without the spirit of G-d, the Bible is useless, as is everything else.  Think Deconstructionism and Derrida ... that is what most readers of the Bible do ... project themselves into the text, they don't let the text speak to them, get a word in edgewise.  Theologians are the most guilty of this.

[Randy Carson]

I don't think the contradictions are overstated, nor can the wrinkles be ironed out  - but here's my list of the many contradictions in the Bible, in case you would care to give them a go:

Bible Contradictions - By Category

Is this your personal work? Or are you merely linking me to someone else's site? I'm just curious, because I have access to sites and books that respond with volumes of material, too.

Instead, maybe you could layout for me a couple of contradictions from the NT that you find most damning for the truth of Christianity. Then we can actually have a conversation about those.

Thanks.

[reasonist]

Instead, maybe you could layout for me a couple of contradictions from the NT that you find most damning for the truth of Christianity. Then we can actually have a conversation about those.
Thanks.

That's an easy one. To list them all would take a couple of weeks to write and for you to read. Here are a couple of obvious ones
According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death.
Some Christians try to manipulate the text to mean this was the first census while Quirinius was governor and that the first census of Israel recorded by historians took place later. However, the literal meaning is "this was the first census taken, while Quirinius was governor ..." In any event, Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until well after Herod's death.

Both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Matthew quotes Micah 5:2 to show that this was in fulfillment of prophecy. Actually, Matthew misquotes Micah (compare Micah 5:2 to Matthew 2:6). Although this misquote is rather insignificant, Matthew's poor understanding of Hebrew will have great significance later in his gospel.
Luke has Mary and Joseph travelling from their home in Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea for the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:4). Matthew, in contradiction to Luke, says that it was only after the birth of Jesus that Mary and Joseph resided in Nazareth, and then only because they were afraid to return to Judea (Matthew 2:21-23).

In Matthew, Mark and Luke the last supper takes place on the first day of the Passover (Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, Luke 22:7). In John's gospel it takes place a day earlier and Jesus is crucified on the first day of the Passover (John 19:14).

According to Matthew 26:15, the chief priests "weighed out thirty pieces of silver" to give to Judas. There are two things wrong with this:
There were no "pieces of silver" used as currency in Jesus' time - they had gone out of circulation about 300 years before.
By using phrases that made sense in Zechariah's time but not in Jesus' time Matthew once again gives away the fact that he creates events in his gospel to match "prophecies" he finds in the Old Testament.

a. Matthew 27:28, Mark 15:17 and John 19:2 say that after Pilate had Jesus scourged and turned over to his soldiers to be crucified, the soldiers placed a scarlet or purple robe on Jesus as well as a crown of thorns.
b. Luke 23:11, in contradiction to Matthew, Mark and John, says that the robe was placed on Jesus much earlier by Herod and his soldiers. Luke mentions no crown of thorns.

Matthew 27:38 and Mark 15:27 say that Jesus was crucified between two robbers (Luke just calls them criminals; John simply calls them men). It is a historical fact that the Romans did not crucify robbers. Crucifixion was reserved for insurrectionists and rebellious slaves.

It's a start. Something to ponder for our resident apologist.

[Randy Carson]

"Simpletons? Matthew was a government employee...a tax-collector. Paul was clearly a scholar under the tutelage of one of the greatest rabbis of his day. So, no."

So yes. At the time and place 98% of the population were illiterate. You mention 2 out of 12 apostles. Jesus himself was a woodworker, one step above slave. They were all simpletons otherwise we would read about the germ theory or DNA or quantum mechanics or electricity or.....
The Jesus in the bible and his crew were with a couple exceptions carpenters, fishermen etc. who according to you were not only literate but spoke and wrote in Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek. Even your godly dude Christos had no idea that the mustard seed is not the smallest seed. Duh. These people had no clue about anything but smiting, stoning and enslaving.
Give us ONE (1!) word in the bible that could not have been written by a simpleton and I stand corrected. Anything that would make our jaws drop in awe or be remotely surprised. Please prove us wrong.

The word "simpleton" means "a foolish or gullible person".  Foolish and gullible people can be literate. People who are illiterate are not automatically foolish or gullible.

Aside from the brilliant theology of Paul or the poetry of the Psalms which both require a true talent, I offer this well-known passage which many people regard as among the most beautiful ever written:

1 Corinthians 13:4-13

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Either you can appreciate the beauty of the prose or you cannot.

However, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the dating of the gospels which is the topic of this thread.

[Randy Carson]

Mark's Gospel ends at 16:8 leaving the women afraid and failing to record the resurrection (only the empty tomb), Christ's final instructions, and the Ascension.

Mark's gospel ended this way:

Mark 16:6-7
6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

"He is risen." Yeah...Mark knew that Jesus rose from the dead.

If it weren't for the last 12 verses, added later, there would be exactly 666 verses in the gospel of Mark. Isn't that special?

The earliest manuscripts suggest that the Mark of the Beast is actually 616, but so what?

John 6:66
From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

Are YOU a former Christian?

But in all seriousness, the chapter and verse numbers were added centuries later. They were not part of the original texts, and they were not inspired.

[reasonist]

"Either you can appreciate the beauty of the prose or you cannot.
However, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the dating of the gospels which is the topic of this thread".

It's wonderful poetry, no doubt. So is Shakespeare, Larkin, Dunne, and thousands others. Without silly claims pretending to be facts. At least we KNOW the authors also. The bible has beautiful passages of poetry and hundreds of pages of complete garbage and nonsense.

[Blackleaf]

The earliest manuscripts suggest that the Mark of the Beast is actually 616, but so what?

Actually, it was 666, but some writers knew what the original author meant and tried to correct it for their general audience. Back then, letters and numbers were the same. You could take someone's name and "calculate" what the number is. What name happens to add up to 666? Neron Caesar. That was what the Hebrew speakers called Nero Caesar. But since most of their growing numbers were not Hebrews, some copiers of the manuscripts changed it to 616 so that it would be the number that corresponds to Caesar's more common name.

[Randy Carson]

Again, incorrect.  Reliable people tell us what they know to be true because other people can verify their statements independently.  Mere eyewitness reporting is the least compelling form of evidence.  I assert that I have seen a flying saucer.  Do you believe me?  I mean, I'm an eyewitness telling you it's true.

And this is incorrect. If you do not PERSONALLY verify EVERYTHING you learn in life, then you admit that you are willing to accept some testimony on some subjects from people that you deem to be reliable. Dr. Richard Swinburne, Emeritus Professor of Philosphy at Oxford, argues for what he calls "the principle of testimony" - that in the absence of counter evidence, we should believe what others tells us they have done or seen.

Beijing?  Sure, I'm willing to accept Beijing exists without having seen it myself.  Not only is there an overwhelming (i.e., not just one book that's been multiply copied and translated over two millennia) body of evidence for the existence of the place from multiple disparate sources, but I can look for myself at the photographic evidence.  There are far too many photos -- ground level and satellite -- for them all to have been photoshopped to be in accord with each other.  You're asking for a conspiracy that dates back hundreds, thousands of years to deliberately fool the rest of the world into thinking that a city of several million exists when it doesn't.  Occam's Razor cuts the throat of that pretty efficiently.

Sure. Now tell me what Alexander the Great looked like. Do we have any descriptions of him? Are they reliable?

The far side of the moon?  Obviously, it must have one.  There is no such thing as a topologically simple physical object that has only one side.  The photographs from multiple sources all agree.  Unless, of course, you want to suggest the the former Soviet Union and the US have been colluding for 50 years to convince astronomers and interested amateurs that the far side of the moon looks as photographed, when it actually looks differently.  Occam's Razor again plays Sweeney Todd.

Of course it has one. Describe it in detail. But first, where did you get the information you will base your description upon? By relying on others.

Now, there is a vast difference between my being willing to accept the existence of Beijing and the far side of the moon, and my being willing to accept either the historicity or the putative divinity of a first-century preacher in the Middle East.  And the only "evidence" you're offering to accept the existence of this first century preacher's divinity is the very "evidence" that you're trying to assert in the first place.

Do you accept the existence of Nazareth? How about Arimathea?

See, the NT can be viewed as a non-inspired collection of books, and they can be tested to see how accurate the information contained in them really is. Archaeology has been very, very kind to Christianity.

I have two words for you: circular reasoning.

I use the word 'reasoning' advisedly.

Those two words are very important. When they actually apply. If you think they do in this case, then you have misunderstood my argument.

[Mike Cl]

Those two words are very important. When they actually apply. If you think they do in this case, then you have misunderstood my argument.

Your arguments are crystal clear--and they are opinions and they are circular.  But that does make sense for the scales that rest upon your eyes are circular and are very heavy--I doubt you will ever remove them.  Tis a pity.

[reasonist]

"Aside from the brilliant theology of Paul or the poetry of the Psalms which both require a true talent, I offer this well-known passage which many people regard as among the most beautiful ever written"

Very nice...and now maybe you could offer us that single word I was challenging you about. Just one word that could have NOT been written by bronze age simpletons but could ONLY come from a divine source.
Thank you